What changed since last check

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: requires domain tracking, requires a paid subscription with trial details, returns specific delta types, and provides a fallback path. This adds significant value beyond annotations, with no contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is slightly longer but front-loaded with purpose and usage, then detailed prerequisites and outputs. Every sentence contributes necessary information, but it could be tightened without losing value. Overall efficient for the complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Since there is no output schema, the description fully explains return values (score movement, engines gained/lost, competitors moved, new/resolved issues) and covers prerequisites, subscription, and fallback. This gives the agent everything needed to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers both parameters 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond context; it only mentions 'since it was last checked' which aligns with the 'since' parameter. No additional semantics like examples or edge cases are provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reports what changed in a website's AI visibility and audit since the last check, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_ai_visibility or run_audit by focusing on deltas since last check.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use with example queries ('did anything change,' 'did my AI visibility drop'), and provides alternatives for prerequisites: track_site for untracked domains, get_sample_audit for users without a subscription. This gives clear context and exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.